get_reportCheck the status of an asynchronous report and download it once ready by providing issuer and report IDs; optionally wait up to 300 seconds before returning.
Check status of an async report and download it when ready.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuerId | Yes | Issuer ID (from list_issuers) | |
| reportId | Yes | ||
| waitSeconds | No | Seconds to wait before returning a pending reportId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the report is async and that the call may both poll and download, but it says nothing about terminal states, what happens on repeated calls while pending, or error behavior for expired report IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with zero filler, and the two distinct behaviors (status check, download) are front-loaded in order of occurrence. Nothing in it is redundant with the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape but omits the linkage to the run_*_report siblings that produce reportId, and omits what a pending versus ready response looks like. Adequate, but an agent still has to guess the workflow glue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: issuerId and waitSeconds carry descriptions, while reportId has none in the schema. The description does not fill that gap by explaining where reportId originates, though 'when ready' hints at the pending/polling semantics that waitSeconds controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb pair and resource: check status of an async report and download it when ready. This clearly distinguishes it from the run_*_report siblings, which presumably kick off generation, though the description never explicitly names those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'async report' — an agent can infer this is the follow-up call after run_register_listing_report or similar, but no when-to-use or prerequisite statement is given. There is no explicit note that reportId must come from one of the run_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.